CHAPTER 5. ASIA AS METHOD (Overcoming the Present Conditions of Knowledge Production This | have called “Asia as method,” and yet it is impossible to defritely state what this might mean, TAKEUCHI YOSHI “ASIRAS METHOD" The citcal analysis of nat tion ina political discourse of our owr strugales of national of a bygone era, we are made aware of the way in which we relate our own theory and practice; judging ther assess- 3 possiblities, we begin to ponder the possi us today. Thus, analysis itself becomes pol . Knowledge production is one of the major sites in which imperialism operates and exercises its power. The analyses in the preceding chapters suggest that the underdevelopment of deimperialization movements is 2 significant contributing factor in local, regional, and global conflicts throughout the contemporary world. This underdevelopment, I submit, has to do with the current conditions of knowledge production, which have serious structural 1ns. To break through the impasse, critical intellectual work on deimperialization fist and foremost has to transform these problematic conditions, transcend the structural limitations, and uncover alternative possibilities.Leaving Asia for America ‘To confront the long-lasting impact of “leaving Asia for America” (tuéyé rriméi) since the Second World War in East Asia in general, and Tai- ‘wan if particular, this chapter puts forward “Asia as method” as a criti- «al proposition to transform the existing knowledge structure and at the same time to transform ourselves. The potential of Asia as method is this: using the idea of Asia as an imaginary anchoring point, societies in Asia ‘ean become each other's points of reference, so that the understanding of the self may be transformed, and subjectivity rebuilt. On this basis, the diverse historical experiences and rich social practices of Asia may be ‘mobilized to provide alternative horizons and perspectives. This method of engagement, I believe, has the potential to advance a different under- standing of world history. At the same time, the formulation of Asia as method is also an at- tempt to move forward on the tripartite problematic of decolonization, deimperialization, and de-cold war. To briefly recap the analysis devel- ‘oped over the previous four chapters: the historical processes of imperi- alization, colonization, and the cold war have become mutually entangled structures, which have shaped and conditioned both intellectual and popular knowledge production. Through the use of Asia as method, a society in Asia may be inspired by how other Asian societies deal with problems similar to its own, and thus overcome unproductive anxieties, and develop new paths of engagement. In proposing a means for self- transformation through shifting our points of reference toward Asia and the third world, Asia as method is grounded in the critical discourses of an earlier generation of thinkers, with whom we now imagine new possi- bilities For those of us living in Asia, Asia as method is not a self-explanatory proposition, Until the last decade, most intellectuals in Asia had mul- tiple direct links to North America or Europe, but we had few contacts ‘among ourselves. If we met at all, it was in New York, London, ot Paris. At its most basic, Asia as method means expanding the number of these ‘meeting points to include sites in Asia such as Seoul, Kyoto, Singapore, Bangalore, Shanghai, and Taipei. ‘As a theoretical proposition, Asia as method is a result of practices ‘growing out of the Inter-Asia Cultural Studies: Movements journal project, naa CHAPTER 5 eee which has been operating since the late 1990s. In this context, Asia as, method can be considered a self-reflexive movement to examine prob- Jems and issues emerging out of our experiences organizing interventions in various local spaces: Those of us who have been involved come from very diverse intellectual and academic backgrounds, not to mention re- gions with immensely varied local histories. Yet we all feel that something important and worthwhile is emerging out of the intense dialogues we are ‘undertaking among ourselves and with others. Asia as method is my own, attempt to think through some of these intellectual concerns, priorities, and processes. ‘The Inter-Asia project is not new. An earlier generation of intellectuals paved the way, and having learned of their struggles, we are now finding ‘out for ourselves how dificult it is to initiate dialogues and links among les in Asia? The most obvious difficulty is the imbalance be- ig countries and small ones, evident in the relationships between India and the rest of South Asia, Indonesia and the rest of Southeast Asia, and China and the rest of Northeast Asia. What we now call inter- national relations existed in each subregion of Asia before the forma- tion of the modern nation-state, and the earlier imbalances were exacer- bated by twentieth-century colonialism and nationalism. Each of these factors—size, colonial experiences, and nationalism —is evident in the ‘major historical conflicts in the region: Japan's aggression in East and Southeast Asia, Indonesia's 1965 massacre of communists and reluctance to grant East Timor its independence, the division of Korea, the conflict between the ccp and the Karr, the partition of Pakistan from India, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, and the unequal distribution of and third-world Asian countries. Dealing with these s is made more difficult by recurring practical prob- . For example, English is often seen as a colonial language in non- English-speaking parts of Asia, and those countries that have adopted it are viewed by others as much too colonized. As we interact, problems such as this surface repeatedly, and we have not yet found effective ways to handle them. Before moving on, I wish to clarify a political motive of Asia as ‘method —the use of Asia as an emotional signifer to call for regional integration and solidarity. In reality, due to historical constraints and cur- rent local diferences, the general mood does not justify using Asia in this ASIAAS METHOD 99‘way quite yet. Nevertheless, the globalization of capital has generated economic and cultural regionalization, which has in tum brought about the rise of Asia as a pervasive structure of sentiment, As a result, both a historical condition and an emotional basis exist for new imaginings of Asia to emerge. ‘he tise of Asia is not simply an artifact of the evolution of global capitalism; itis also the manifestation of a number of local historical cur- rents. First, in contrast to the standard narrative, the regional integra- tion of Asian economies has not yet lived up to expectations. Besides the loose networks of ASEAN Plus Three and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, there is little integrationist activity. Official and informal talks on the Asian common market and the creation of an Asian dollar as a way to counter U.S. hegemony bear witness to integra- tionist sentiments, but there are no such regional mechanisms in place to take advantage of them. Second, some Asian nation-states have begun to create links with each other based not on economic needs but in their ‘own self-interest. For instance, in South Korea in the 1990s, an East Asia discourse began to emerge, which, according to Choi Wan Ju, was based on the sentiment that the Korean conflict cannot be resolved within the Korean Peninsula, and therefore requires the involvement of neighboring countries? As the biggest country in the region, mainland China has a ‘unique relation to the rest of East Asia (Baik 2002). To alleviate regional anxieties over the supposed China threat, China has had to develop a set of specific policies towin over the trust ofits neighbors. ike South Korea and China, the other nations in the region are in the process of creating their own relation with the concept of Asia. Under present historical conditions, with the economic, historical, and cultural meanings of Asia fluctuating and contradictory, members of critical intellectual citcles in Asia are better equipped to move beyond the limit of the nation-state boundary, to develop discourses congruent with the new condition, to create a new discursive mood, and to imagine new possibilities, Inthe intellectual history ofthe twentieth century, the itis tightly connected to the question of the nation-state, and is over- 2 CHAPTERS ae t lapping with the perspective of the empire; itis a civilizational concept in relation to Europe, but is also a geographical category established in ‘geo-political relations” (Wang 2002, 204), These anxieties, entangled and interrelated, have to do not only with the question of the West, but also with historical memories within Asia, Inside the region itself, anxiety over the meaning of Asia arises from the politics of representation. For instance, in Japan and South Korea, Asia has referred mainly to China, and occasionally to India. This under- standing of Asia indicates how larger civilizational entities functioned historically. China, for example, considers itself to be the center of its imaginary Asia, so Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, the Pacific Islands, Australia, and New Zealand have been pushed to the ‘margins or have simply disappeared altogether. In East Asia challenging this bias can open up new horizons and a broader regional system of ref- ‘erence. There is certainly a need for subregional integration, but it would bbe a mistake with enormous consequences if East Asia were imagined as a replacement for the whole of Asia. ‘The anxiety over representation is also evident when Asia is seen as primarily a colonial imagination. If Asia isto have analytical value, it does indeed have to be placed within the frame of world history, but if world history is understood as Euro-American imperialism and capitalist ex- pansion, the agency and subjectivity of Asia are stripped away. It would be no different than saying that since the nation-state is a European or colonialist construct, itis therefore illegitimate. Ifthe legitimacy of the discourse on Asia is discounted, we are left with the old binary opposition between the East and the West, which erases Asia's rich multiplicity and heterogeneity. ‘Asia as method recognizes the need to keep a critical distance from tuninterrogated notions of Asia, just as one has to maintain a critical dis- tance from uninterrogated notions of the nation-state. It sees Asia as a ‘product of history, and realizes that Asia has been an active participant in historical processes. Building on the analyses developed in the previous chapters, this chap- ter presents a series of dialogues. The first dialogue takes up once again the old question of the West as it is rearticulated in several seminal post- colonial texts, The purpose here is to pinpoint the understandable but unnecessary obsession with the question of the West, and then to suggest ASIAAS METHOD 235 pe